» Articles » PMID: 12175375

Biologic Outcome of Implant-supported Restorations in the Treatment of Partial Edentulism. Part I: a Longitudinal Clinical Evaluation

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2002 Aug 15
PMID 12175375
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to predict the outcome of implant restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism, taking into account implant interdependency and the effect of several confounding variables. Between December 1982 and June 1998, 1956 Brånemark system implants (1212 and 744 in the maxilla and mandible, respectively, 846 distal to first premolars) were installed in 660 patients (248 males) at the Department of Periodontology of the University Hospitals of the Catholic University of Leuven. Of the 810 restorations installed at the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry of the same hospital, 235 were single crowns, 166 were supported by implants and teeth and 409 were free-standing fixed partial prostheses. An additional 87 restorations was placed in private dental offices and were not included. The patients were followed from implant installation until June 1999. The estimated cumulative survival rates were 91.4% for all implants and 95.8% for all restorations over a period of 16 years. Estimated cumulative survival rates from loading for implant-tooth connected and free-standing implants were, respectively, 93.6% and 97.2%. Neither jaw site nor implant position (anterior-posterior) had any significant effect on the outcome. Short implant length, high number of implants per patient, low number of implants per prosthesis, implants loaded by acrylic-veneered restorations and implants combined with bone grafting present a higher risk hazard for implant failure. The idea of not splinting the implants in a fixed partial prosthesis is promising but needs replication before accepting it.

Citing Articles

A Multicenter Study of Factors Related to Early Implant Failures-Part 1: Implant Materials and Surgical Techniques.

Wahlberg R, Stenport V, Wennerberg A, Hjalmarsson L Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025; 27(1):e70015.

PMID: 39976277 PMC: 11840881. DOI: 10.1111/cid.70015.


A comparative finite element analysis of titanium, poly-ether-etherketone, and zirconia abutment on stress distribution around maxillary anterior implants.

Elias A, Banu R, Vaidyanathan A, Padmanabhan T Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2024; 21:22.

PMID: 38807658 PMC: 11132231.


Influence of Implant Location, Number, and Design in Ischemic Zone for Implant Prosthesis Success Rate: A Comparative Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.

Sayed A, Garg K, Mohan S, Tareen S, Shiva Shankar B, Omran M Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e53881.

PMID: 38465182 PMC: 10925053. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.53881.


Influence of implant design and length on stress distribution in immediately loaded implants in posterior maxilla - A two-dimensional finite element analysis.

Singh R, Desai S, Manjunath R J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2024; 27(6):600-606.

PMID: 38434497 PMC: 10906790. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_531_22.


Outcomes of treatment with short dental implants compared with standard-length implants: a retrospective clinical study.

Berczy K, Gondocs G, Komlos G, Shkolnik T, Szabo G, Nemeth Z Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024; 46(1):6.

PMID: 38416263 PMC: 10902233. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-024-00419-8.